Martin Luther on Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation

[Luther] begins the preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews with a sentence which applies to all four separated writings: “Up to now we have had a clear conscience in presenting books of the New Testament; but the four which follow have long had a different standing.” He writes of James in the preface to that epistle: “. . . I do not consider it as the writing of an apostle . . .” In the same preface Luther writes on the Epistle of Jude: “. . . no on can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second Epistle, since the words are almost the same. He also speaks of the apostles as one of their disciples long after; and refers to a text and narrative which are found nowhere in Scripture. This moved the old Fathers also to exclude this Epistle from the main Scripture.” On Revelation, he writes: “There is nothing in this book which would make me consider it either apostolic or prophetic.” The last sentence is deleted from [Luther’s translation from] 1530, together with an entire preface to the September Testament . . . On the Epistle to the Hebrews, he writes with reference to the denial of repentance for backsliding sinners after baptism (Heb 6 and 10), and to Esau, who sought repentance without finding it (Heb 12), which he calls a “hard knot” in Scripture: “It is against all the Gospels and the Epistles of Saint Paul.” His argument directly against the Epistle of James is similar: “First, against Saint Paul and other Scripture, it gives justification to works . . .” He adds a second argument: “Secondly, he wants to teach Christian people, but does not think once of such a long teaching as that of the passion and resurrection and Spirit of Christ; he mentions Christ a few times, but he teaches nothing about him, but speaks of common faith in God.” And Luther links this directly with what is for him the positive note by which true evangelical testimony may be recognized: “For the office of a true apostle is to preach of Christ’s passion and resurrection and office, and to lay the foundation of faith in him . . . Therein all true holy books agree, that they together preach and apply Christ.” On the Epistle of Jude, he does not consider it necessary “to count [it] among the books used to lay the foundation of faith.” In Revelation he cannot see any signs that the Holy Spirit was its author, and confesses: “My spirit cannot penetrate this book; and it is enough for me not to esteem it highly that Christ is neither taught or recognized in it . . . I therefore remain with the books which present Christ clearly and purely to me” (Preface to the 1522 September Testament, deleted from 1530; WADB 7.404).

Klaus Dietrich Fricke, “The Apocrypha in the Luther Bible” in The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective, ed. Siegfried Meurer (trans. Paul Ellingworth; New York: United Bible Socities, 1991), 46-87, here, pp. 72-73; first two comments in square brackets my own added for clarification.

The Eucharist in the Didache

The Didache is a very early Christian document, variously dated between AD 50-100; some scholars, such as Milavec, date it between 50-70 [see his book, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E] contemporary with the inscripturation of much of the New Testament. It is also a document that gives much insight into the practices and theology of the early Christians.

On the topic of the Eucharist, we read:

Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David thy servant, which thou madest known to us through Jesus thy Servant; to thee be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou madest known to us through Jesus thy Servant; to thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom; for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptised into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. (Didache 9:1-5)

There are a number of important things one finds in the above text.

Firstly, the Eucharist is never understood to be a propitiatory sacrifice wherein Christ is substantially present (Transubstantiation); instead, the Didache understand's the Lord's Supper to be a "Thanksgiving" (Greek: ευχαριστια); indeed, one translation of the Apostolic Fathers renders verse 1 as "the eucharistic thanksgiving" (J.B. Flightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers [1891]). Indeed, the author of the Didache understood the function of the Eucharist was not to propitiate the wrath of God by re-presenting the sacrifice at Calvary, but instead, to serve as an instrumental means to bring about unity of faith ("even as [ωσπερ] this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one [εγενετο εν], so [ουτω] let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom").

This understanding of the Eucharist is found elsewhere in the Didache, such as 10:3, " . . . thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through thy son." To quote on scholar on the Didache:

The congregation thanked God not only for material food and drink, but also for spiritual food and drink: knowledge, faith, immortality, and eternal life. It is not stated in these prayers of thanks that the bread and wine stand for Christ’s body and blood. The Didache therefore did not interpret them as representations of his body and blood, and consequently it does not see the meal as a way of becoming one with Christ. It does, however, regard eating and drinking them as an anticipated, proleptic participation in a future salvation, namely the coming kingdom of God. According to 9:2 the wine represents the vine of king David, God’s servant; according to 9:3 the bread symbolizes the unity of the church gathered into God’s kingdom” (Henk Jan de Jonge, The Community Supper according to Paul and the Didache: Their Affinity and Historical Development, eds. Jan Krans, L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, Peter-Ben Smit, Arie W. Zwiep, Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology, [BRILL, 2013], p. 34).

There is no hint whatsoever of (1) the concept of transubstantiation and (2) the Eucharist being a propitiatory sacrifice in the Didache.

Secondly, mirroring historical LDS practice, the Eucharistic prayers are fixed and, unlike most other prayers are not extemporaneous; such a practice is both a rarity in the early Christian community as well as the LDS tradition.

Additionally, in v.5, the qualifications for those who can partake of the Lord's Supper is spelt out. Only those who have been baptised "into" the "name of the Lord," using the same strong positional language one finds in the New Testament, such as Rom 6:1-4, showing that the author understood, as did other patristic authors, that baptism was the instrumental means of initial justification and entering "into" the life and death of Christ (οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα κυρίου ["the ones baptised into the name of the Lord"]).

Furthermore, the Christology of the Didache is clearly that of a subordinationist Christology; in vv.2-3, the Eucharistic prayers refers to Christ in subservient terms vis-a-vis the Father, using the phrase Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου ("Jesus thy Servant"), with the author asking for the singular person of the Father, not the three persons of the Trinity or the Trinity itself to be glorified, emphasising the subordination between the Father and the Son (σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας "to you [sg.] be glory forever").

Finally, just as the version of the Lord's Prayer in the Didache [8:2; cf. 10:5], there is a doxology, mirroring that in Sermon in the Mount; to understand the significance of this, see my blog post here.

Marion D Hanks on Gospel Scholarship

“No one knows anything about Christ’s work simply by being born a member of the Church, and often he knows little about it after years of unmotivated exposure in meetings or classes. He must learn. And learning involves self-investment and effort. The gospel should be studied ‘as carefully as any science.’ The ‘literature of the Church’ must be ‘acquired and read.’ Our learning should be increased in our spare time ‘day by day.’ Then as we put the gospel truth to work in daily life, we will never find it wanting. We will be literate in the most important field of knowledge in the universe, knowledge for lack of which men and nations perish, in the light of which men and nations may be saved” (Marion D. Hanks, “Theological Illiterates”, Improvement Era [September 1968]: 42)

Blake Ostler on the Christology of Mosiah 15

40. Modalism or Distinction in Unity? Those who adopt a modalist reading of Mormon scripture rely heavily on Mosiah 15 as a proof-text for their view. The focus of this scripture is to explain how Jesus Christ is both God and man. The primary issue is thus what we would now call christology. However, the explanation of Christs dual humanity/divinity is elucidated in terms of the Sons relation to the Father. Their are four key comparisons in Mosiah 15 that elucidate this relationship. First, "the flesh" is parallel to the "spirit." Second, the Son is identified with the flesh and the Father is identified with spirit; that is, possession of flesh is predicated only of the Son and the Father is identified with the spirit. Third, the Sons will is subordinated to, or "swallowed up in," the Fathers will as a result of the Sons death of the flesh. Finally, the Son becomes "the Father and the Son" whereas the Father already is the Father but never the Son.

41. For purposes of exegesis, I will also introduce the principle of identity of indiscernibles. The importance of this logical principle is that any expression of the relation between the Father and the Son which can be termed patripassionism (i.e., that the Father suffers in the Sons suffering because the Father is identical to the Son) or modalism must satisfy this principle. Roughly this principle asserts that something is identical to another thing if and only if everything that is true of that something is also true of the other thing. For purposes of reviewing this scripture, I will present it in parallelismus membrorum form:

God himself shall come down
among the children of men,
and shall redeem his people.And because he dwelleth in the flesh,
he shall be called the Son of God,
and having subjected to the flesh
to the will of the Father,
being the Father and the Son --
The Father because he was conceived by the power of God;
and the Son because of the flesh;
thus becoming the Father and the Son --
And they are one God,
yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth.
And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit,
or the Son to the Father,
being one God,
suffereth temptation....
Yea, even so he shall be led,
crucified and slain,
the flesh becoming subject even unto death,
the will of the Son
being swallowed in the will of the Father.
And thus God breaketh the bands of death,
giving the Son power to make intercession
for the children of men. (Mosiah 15:1-8)

Now let's ask a few questions. How many wills are there among the divine persons? The answer seems fairly transparent. There are two. The Son has a will of his own but he subjects it to the Fathers will by undergoing death in furtherance of the Fathers will. How many wills are expressed in the Sons life? There is only one will functionally expressed because the Sons will is swallowed up in the Fathers will. Because the Father's will is embodied,so to speak, in the Son, the Son becomes both the Father and the Son. Will this scripture satisfy the principle of the identity of indiscernibles? Manifestly it will not because the Son has a number of properties that the Father does not have. The Son has a distinct will which is subjected to the Fathers will. Thus, the Son has the property of having a will subjected to the Fathers will and the Father does not. The Father gives power to the Son to make intercession, the Son thus has the property of receiving power from the Father to make intercession and the Father does not. The Son has the property of being made flesh and is called the Son because he possesses this property which the Father does not. The Son has the property of being conceived by the power of the Father and the Father does not. It follows that the Father and the Son are not identical although they are intimately united by a common will.

42. Thus, there are two divine persons having distinct wills in this passage, the Father and the Son. However, there is only one God. The Father and the Son in relation to one another "are one God." It is of utmost importance to note that whenever the Mormon scriptures predicate oneness of God, it is always, without exception, a relationship of the Father and the Son, or the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to one another, and never a reference to just one of the divine persons. This usage can be compared to references to "one God" in the Old Testament which refer to a single divine person, Yahweh (Dt. 6:4), or in the New Testament where the Father is sometimes called the one God (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6) or "the only true God" (John 17:3)

43. There is another feature of this passage which is important to note. The Book of Mormon views possession of a body as a necessary condition for humans to experience suffering. (2 Nephi 2:15-25) Moreover, God is no exception to this general rule. It is true that the Book of Mormon views the Son as the God of the Old Testament who delivered the Law to the Israelites. (1 Ne. 19:7, 9-10; Alma 7:8-13; 3 Ne. 11:14; 15:5-9) It is the very God of Israel who is incarnated as the Son of God. However, the Book of Mormon is careful to specify that whenever the God of Israel suffers, he does so only "according to the flesh." (Alma 7:8-13, "the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh"). There are fifteen references in the Book of Mormon which predicate suffering of God, and all fifteen references are attributed to "the flesh" or to the Son of God as a mortal and never to the Father or God simpliciter. (1 Ne. 19:9; 2 Ne. 9:5, 21-22; Mosiah 3:7; 17:15, 18; 15:5; Alma 7:13; 33:22; Hel. 13:6; 14:20) The Son has the property of suffering according to the flesh and the Father does not.

44. Moreover, the Book of Mormon refers to the Son as "the Father of heaven and earth" five times (Mos. 3:7; Mosiah 15:4; Alma 11:39-40; Ether 3:14-17). Each time that the Son is called the Father of heaven and earth it is always and only in the context of: (1) the Son becoming mortal and taking upon himself flesh, and (2) the Son as creator. For example, Mosiah 3:5-8 states that "he shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay .... [And shall] suffer temptations, pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer ... And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things ...." It seems to me that the best way to understand references to the Son as the "Father of heaven and earth" is that the Father's will has become embodied in the Son because the Son fulfills the Father's will by becoming enfleshed. This is exactly the conclusion of Mosiah 15:3 which states that the Son "becomes the Father and the Son" because he was conceived by the power of the Father and became flesh as the Son. Further, the Son is recognized as the Father's exact duplicate in creation of heaven and earth because he embodies the Father's will in such activities.

45. There is of course a rival interpretation of this passage which attempts to square it with modalism. If I have properly grasped the view presented by those who argue for a modalist interpretation, they would suggest that in Mosiah 15 the divine person who is the Father is spirit and the same person became flesh as the Son. Thus, this one person is called both the Father and the Son because the Fathers spirit has entered flesh and become the Son, thus becoming both Father and Son. The Father has certain properties as a spirit before becoming mortal and then has other properties subsequently as flesh. For example, as a spirit the divine person who is called the Father cannot experience pain but when this same divine person takes upon himself flesh as the Son he is capable of experiencing pain. Thus, it may be argued that the incompatible properties refer to successive states of being of the same divine person.

46. However, this interpretation cannot account for all of the aspects of this text. According to Abinadi, the Son as flesh has a distinct will which is "swallowed up" in the Fathers will as spirit. The Father has a will at the same time that the Son has his will. This modalist interpretation leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father's will was swallowed up in his own will, but as the Son." This interpretation fails to recognize the distinction of wills presented in the text. It also leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father gave himself power to make intercession." This interpretation fails to recognize the relational giving from Father to Son in the text. It also leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father conceived himself." The Son has properties as flesh while at the same time, and not in a successive state, the Father has different properties. Thus, this interpretation seems to me to violate the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals and cannot account for the text in its totality.

Source: Blake T. Ostler, Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity

M Russell Ballard on the Importance of Scholarship

On facebook, a grossly misinformed Latter-day Saint wrote the following in response to a post on the Greg Kofford page:

 I really don't need intellectuals to tell me how to feel about or interpret the Gospel. I have the Prophet, his Apostles, my own mind and the Holy Ghost .I don't need more than that.

Ben Spackman (check out his blog) responded, and I honestly have to share it here which refutes such an anti-intellectual comment:

Huh. Apparently, you're in better shape than Elder Ballard. 

"When I have a question that I cannot answer, I turn to those who can help me. The Church is blessed with trained scholars and those who have devoted a lifetime of study, who have come to know our history and the scriptures. These thoughtful men and women provide context and background so we can better understand our sacred past and our current practices."

The source for the quote is Elder M. Russell Ballard, "To the Saints in the Utah South Area."

Such is reminiscent of a quote from John Wesley:

‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

Alfred Plummer on Luke 22:44

44. ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνμοντες. Even if καταβαίνοντος (א V X, Vulg. Boh.) be right, the words do not necessarily mean more than that the drops of sweat in some way resembled drops of blood, e.g. by their size and frequency. But it is not likely that no more than this is intended, or that the words are a metaphorical expression. like our “tears of blood.” That Justin in referring to the statement omits αἵματος—ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι κατεχεῖτο (Try. 103.)—does not prove that he did not understand actual blood to be meant. Rather it shows that he considered that θρόμβοι, “clots,” sufficiently expressed “drops of blood.”

The expression “bloody sweat” is probably a correct interpretation: and the possibility of blood exuding through the pores seems to be established by examples. Comp. Arist. Hist. Anim. 3:19. De Mezeray states of Charles 9. of France that “During the last two weeks of his life (May 1574) his constitution made strange efforts … blood gushed from all the outlets of his body, even from the pores of his skin; so that on, one occasion he was found bathed in a bloody sweat.” See W. Stroud, The Physical Cause the Death of Christ, 1847, pp. 85–88, 379–389. Schanz cites Lönarz, De sudore sanguinis, Bonn, 1850, and Langen, Die letzten Lebenstage, p. 214. Why is αἵματος added, if no αἶμα accompanied the ἱδρώς? It would be visible in the moonlight, when Jesus returned to the disciples: ubi quidem non solis oculis, sed quasi membris omnibus flevisse videtur (Bernard, In Dom. Palm. Serm. 3:4). Diatess-Tat. has “like a stream of blood.” (Plummer, A. (1896). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke (pp. 510–511). London: T&T Clark International.)

Appealing to the Internal Witness of the Holy Spirit: Not uniquely "Mormon"

In the Westminster Confession of Faith, we read the following in chapter 1 "Of the Holy Scripture" (emphasis added):

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

Here in this well-known Reformed confession, the believer's ultimate knowledge is based on "the inward work of the Holy Spirit" that "[bears] witness" to the believer that the Scriptures (here, the Bible) is the authoritative Word of God. Sounds pretty familiar? Compare with two well-known texts:

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. ut God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, and deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:9-14)

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye should remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down unto the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5)

While he is not Reformed by any stretch of the imagination, William Lane Craig (Molinist/Arminian/Evidentalist) did echo the words of Westminster in the following:

LDS apologist, Russell Ashdown, on his old LDS Website, critiqued James White's chapter against the LDS testimony in Letters to a Mormon Elder here. It is a good read.